1 of 4
1
Poll
is there a good way to defend the three arguments?
no 8
yes 2
agnostic 1
Total Votes: 11
You must be a logged-in member to vote
Existence - Arguments about Him- that square circle
Posted: 15 November 2006 12:01 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

Existence [ the Multiverse] is the first cause , ultimate explanation , greatest and necessary being and through natural selection without plan the great arranger of life forms. So , the cosmological, ontological and the teleological arguments are useless . This argument I got from Quentin Smith in his book on religion and ethics. The cosmological argument rests on the circular argument that there is a starting point and the teleological one rests on our being the result of a super mind’s action. The other one rests on the joke that perfection has a definition.    As Jonathan Harrisson in his "God , Freedom and Immortality," maintains it takes a case of more than one object to compare with: one can ask why there is nothing in one room , but many things in another ; but that is not the case with the Multiverse. There is only this one. So it does not make sense to ask why Existence is. It is not just that we do not know how to answer it correctly. There is nothing that could count a correct answer to it," he notes. :D smile See the two category mistake for more on the teleological argument.

[ Edited: 11 August 2009 09:49 AM by Carneades [ lord griggs1947] ]
Image Attachments
100 by 100.jpg
 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2006 04:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

LOL  The theistic cosmological argument is null, because as Robin LePoidevin notes in” Arguing for Atheism,”“Now if the universe had no beginning, and so there was no time before it existed, then it cannot have had a cause. Equally, if it had a beginning, but this coincided with the beginning of time, then there still would have been no time before the universe began to exist, so it cannot have had a cause.  Rudy Vaas’s forthcoming ” Beyond the Big Bang: Prospects for an Eternal Universe”, Paul Steinhard and Neil Turok in their book and Team Ashtekar with their LQG theory of bounce, demonstrate an eternal Multiverse. One could falsify the theory. It is just metaphysical obfuscation to bring God into the matter! Existence is its own referent. :wink:

[ Edited: 11 August 2009 10:08 AM by Carneades [ lord griggs1947] ]
 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2007 05:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

smile  See Bede Rundle’s ” Why is there Somehing rather than Nothing” to see why one cannot start       the cosmological argument. Victor Stenger’s ‘Has Science found God” and “God : the failed Hypothesis” show why science indeed demonstrates there probaly is no god.There is reason to think that matter-energy has always existed in some universe . As Dr. Dawkins states why if we cannot find a scientific answer,  should we think a theological one comes forth.Theology just"hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf.” :idea:

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 March 2007 12:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

Occam and vacuity

:o This a thread for arguments against natural theology .Now fideists while showing what is wrong with it, presuppose it in their notion of God ,because they aver that He is the creator and designer . I find that theists constantly abuse Occam’s razor in introducing God as creator, designer , miracle maker and giver of purpose .  :!:  :wink: Existence itself is the creator and designer.Miracles are natural. We make our own purposes. Natural theology and fideism both are examples of pareidolia, seeing what is not there like the man in the moon. God offers no real explanation,” hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf ,” signyfying nothing. This is the ignotist argument .So, we have both the Occam and the ignotist arguments to use . rolleyes

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 March 2007 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11

Why is there something rather than nothing? That is presupposing “nothing” is an option.

Why is grass green? Is any other color an option?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 March 2007 08:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

That is the point ! Some do not like it that Dawkins maintains the mind of God must be complex. How else could it understand billions of people in thousands of languages and dialects and take care of the cosmos ? Theists are so shallow! They cannot fathom that the cosmos needs no god behind it . Yes, Existence just is !

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2008 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

This topic is now include in the presumption of naturalism. However, respond here if so desired.

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2008 01:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19

Didn’t Descartes take care of this one in the 1600’s with “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think therefore I am”)?

“But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something (or thought anything at all) then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.”  ~ Rene Descartes

Practically existence is true.  Philosophically I choose to remain agnostic.

 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2008 06:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

Only by the Morgan-Lynn corollary: Existence[ the Universe] exists,is necessrily true as that is basic; whereas Alvin Platinga’s warrant that God is basic begs the question [Nicholas Everitt-“The Non-Exisitence of God][ Aren’t my posts pellucid now?]

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2008 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

My atelic challenge is that science shows no cosmic teleology and Hume’s dysteological one is that imperfections show no teleology that shows a good god.
One reads pareidolia onto Existence in that one assumes that behind and beyond Existence there is a caring, super mind just as in seeing Yeshua in a tortilla. That is the basis for Feurbach and Xenophanes’s noting that humans project their attributes onto gods. This is the basis behind the teleological arguments, which as already noted, assume what they need to demonstrate that there is reason to see design rather than mere patterns.
    Vatican-approved miracles are so fraudelent in that serious scientists when they obseve any note that those who approve them for the Vatican make errors. And note that with the progress of medicine, there are fewer and fewer such miracles! Even those stooges for the Vatican can see that for so many so-called ones. Look how they will make saints of that Mother Teresa and the Pope John Paul 11 and the late king of Belgiusm.
  We have only hearsay for Biblical miracles,ie, just the I just say so of faith. How could a rational person accept what superstitious people would accept without real investigation by someone capable like the Amazing Randi!
Why accept the ones of Yeshua and the equally attested ones of Apollonious of Tyana and others. Christians so love to special plead for their miracle monger and savior-god, who was as unique and credible as the others.
Ilnesses cure themselves all the time and remissions happen all the time. Doctors use averages when they tell other that they only have so much time to live, so that some live ever so much longer is no miracle.  Miracles are a post-hoc fallacy.
History is no argument that God saves Jewry. [ The Holocaust, eh?] Did He save the Roma [ Gypsies] ? Those people with the aid of others saved themselves just as God helps those who help themsleves where they just help themselvse without His help. As someone notes @ Free Inquiry , people should acknowledge their own acitions as theirs rather than as from God.
  Folks, what might others add to these arguments against God? We not only have challenges to natural theology, but as Michael Martin so notes, we have our own challenges against him-  the problem of Heaven [  formerly I called it the definitive refutation of free will as applied to theodicy], the presumption of naturalism, the ignostic- Ockham [see my threads so named] and the hiddennness problem.
  Theists merely put old garbage into new cans that we empty.

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2008 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  342
Joined  2008-06-23

It appears we are having a similar discussion in the “Belief, but Why” thread…

 Signature 

“There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.”   

..............-Isaac Asimov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2008 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

The infinite regres argument portrays eternal Existence from the fact that time, cause and event presuppose previous times, causes and event. As Existence is all, there can be no transcendent God.
  Aquinas begs the question in arguing that by taking away the First Cause, one takes away intermediate ones, assuming without cause that Cause. He also begs the question in assuming the Necessary Being in the contingent argument. He is right in maintaining that it is one day at a time against the Kalaam argument against William Lane Craig, who begs the question in assuming a starting point.
  Kyle Williams observes againt Craig that :” In an infinite number of days, every day must arrive on time. a beginningless timeline, though,doesn’t begin on a particular day. By definition, it doesn’t begin at all. It has been following day by day forever. Every day arrives on schedule, and it is added to the infinite timeline.”
  The law of conservation of mass-energy supports eternal Existence in that guantum energy is then forever, whence comes matter-energy for the Multiverse from one bounce to another. Science indeed does reveal no need for God. The thread the ignositc-Ockham reveals that. See David Mill’s “Atheist Universe” and the works of Victor Stenger.
  Alexander Smoltczyk, German journalist, maintains that God is neither a principle nor an entity nor a person but the Ultimate Explanation. This affirms the ignostic challenge that God is fatuous [See that thread.] in that then there is no way to implement that explanation, so it is a worthless explanation .
  Both the cosmological and teleological arguments center on the question of explanation, which they so miserably fail, affriming then ignosticism.
  Chocatataoi8, thanks. And what do you think about the naturalistic challenges to theism? Fellow naturalists, especially,Doug Smith, what arguments do you use? Theists,  how do you respond? This thread operate with my others against theism, so one might also peruse them.
  As a fallibilist, I grant defeasability of my challenges!
  Oh, I hope I am pellucid rather than opaque in my comments here as others elsewhere contest my syntax. My cortical defects probably interfere with it.
  Blessings and goodwill to all.

[ Edited: 06 November 2008 09:40 AM by Carneades [ lord griggs1947] ]
 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2008 12:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6139
Joined  2006-12-20
skepticdave - 17 March 2007 07:41 PM

Why is there something rather than nothing? That is presupposing “nothing” is an option.

Why is grass green? Is any other color an option?

Hi skepticdave,

Yes it does presuppose that and I think it may well be the case that there must be something.

If so the next question would be, why must there be something?

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2009 09:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

Stephen, t’is Leibniz’s big blunder to ask that fatuous query! How, then ,, could there be nothing? See Bede Rundle’s book named after that specious query.
    As Existence is all, there can be no transcendent Creator , and nothing whence Existence could have come.
    Antony Gerard Newton Flew demolishes the Kalam :‘This disgraceful argument is outstanding among fallacies: not merely does the conclusion not follow from the premises; it contradicts one of them, and they contradict each other.’
    Oh, one can as a philosopher states, have fun with all these arguments for evermore!
    What impels you to believe in Him?  A personal religious experience? Faith [ See the presumption of rationalism..]? You just know that He is that He is?
    Why do you disbelieve in Him? The horrors of this world? Bad experiences with a religion? The cupidity of theists?
    And if you cannot not declare one way or the other, why?
    Paul Kurtz is my friend. Thanks to Facebook, I have several outstanding people as friends!

[ Edited: 18 August 2009 12:36 PM by Carneades [ lord griggs1947] ]
 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2009 08:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

Wow,
This has been a dizzying read.

Reminded me of something Janis Joplin once said:

“Hey man, it’s all in your head anyways!”

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2009 09:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  86
Joined  2009-07-11
naturalist griggsy - 11 August 2009 09:38 AM

    Antony Gerard Newton Flew demolishes the Kalam :‘This disgraceful argument is outstanding among fallacies: not merely does the conclusion not follow from the premises; it contradicts one of them, and they contradict each other.’

I am surprised that Flew would say such a thing. Was this before or after he began to lose his marbles? I have no idea what the “Kalam” is, but it is a fairly basic point of deductive logic that from a contradiction you can validly derive any conclusion whatever (see proof below). So if an argument contains contradictory premises, its conclusion follows logically from them, no matter what it is. Flew’s criticism—that the conclusion of the argument under discussion does not follow from the premises and that two of the premises contradict each other—is itself logically incoherent.

How to derive an arbitrary conclusion, Q, from a contradiction:

1. P and not-P (premise)
2. P (from 1)
3. P or Q (from 2)
4. Not-P (from 1)
.: 5. Q (from 3 and 4)

 Signature 

My blog: Skeptical Observations

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1